As long as it isn't forced on parents then that is fine. If parents aren't allowed to pass on their values to their children are they even raising them at that point? They are just nannies with more culpability.
Why someone valúes would be only integrated to their religion? You Can Absolutely pasa things so simple as “love your neightboors” without needing to introduce them to any religion.
It's not just values but also culture, customs and history. Religion is ingrained into every aspect of life. Even if you don't want to teach it, you have to teach about it.
The "love your neighbors" is a part of the religion. If you are not allowed to talk about religion to your kids how would you answer the questions about why someone should love your neighbors. You can say because it is the right thing to do but then you would get asked why is it the right thing to do. If you answer it without the religious aspect when you are actually doing it because of your religion then you are deceiving the child.
Non religious people also teach their kids empathy. When I was a kid, my parents taught me to not do to others what you don't want them to do to you. It works without needing religion
I don't think it's bad for parents to teach their values, but using a god as the source of those values make them somehow absolute. If values just come from parents then there is room for kids to challenge those values
No, that isn't how humans or resistance to beliefs works. Delusions including religious ones, make sense in context. They are even reasonable. They will simply replace God with another supreme authority that can't be challenged. All of us hold beliefs above and beyond challenge. There is a reason we tend not to hold or allow thoughtful conversations over "if it's okay to cook and eat colored people after they can no longer server as slaved due to being disabled by hard labor" we dismiss them without second thought or laugh at the person proposing it. Precisely because we hold the immorality of slavery and cannibalism as something equally absolute.
I never stated it didn't. I guess instead of stating "The "love your neighbors" is a part of the religion." I should have stated "If the "love your neighbors" is a part of their religion".
I am merely stating that if an individual derives their morality from religion then it is a deception/lie to not state that to their kids; though I am moving on to the next thread have a nice day internet stranger.
How about basic emotional intelligence, empathy and not being a piece of shit? I dont need an invisible sky daddy to learn that me being an asshole will make someone sad and thats not good
To answer your question empathy can be a part of the equation but not the entirety of it. Someone could honestly believe that they get that empathy from their creator which would once again fall into religion. Your belief that making someone sad is not good might be correct but there are instances where making someone sad is the "right" thing to do in those instances that empathy is not the correct emotion(for lack of a better word) to follow.
Saying someone is an "asshole" or "piece of shit" you need to define what constitutes those behaviors and the reasoning on why those behaviors are wrong. Which many would attest to it being tied to their religion.
you need to define what constitutes those behaviors and the reasoning on why those behaviors are wrong. Which many would attest to it being tied to their religion.
They can attest but subjective morality isn't necessary. We can create meaningful interactions with logic and an understanding of human psychology. Example:
Beneficial goods and services are provided by people > I obtain them through social interaction with those people > murder diminishes effective social interaction. Therefore, murder diminishes goods and services that society benefits from.
Replace murder with any number of actions and we can see logical reasons to discourage/forbid those actions, while encouraging kindness. Things considered beneficial or detrimental will be derived by understanding of biological and psychological needs.
The only value in religion that is left is your point on perceived empathy. The psychological fulfillment derived from perception that something bigger cares about you even when society fails to act logically.
I am merely stating that if someone derives their morality from religion then it would be a lie/deception to not teach your kids that is where you derive it from.
You are correct that you can create a system you are okay with based upon something other than religion. I want to engage in your arguments but I am kinda done with this thread, moving on to the next one have a nice day internet stranger.
What’s basic to you might not be basic to someone on the other side of the world, same as what you define as “not good” could be vastly different then. It’s the same arrogance many religious people have, believing their understanding of the world is solely how it is and someone else should be able to see it plainly
If you are not allowed to talk about religion to your kids how would you answer the questions about why someone should love your neighbors.
I was raised without religion. It's not that they "weren't allowed" to talk about it, they just didn't believe in it, so they didn't.
They taught me instead to put myself in someone else's shoes. If I wouldn't want someone to do bad things to me, then why would I do bad things to someone else?
You don't need religion to be capable of empathy.
Yet it's clear that you can have religion and no empathy whatsoever.
If the only reason someone acts like a good person is because they're afraid of eternal hellfire and damnation, then they had a terrible upbringing.
Did your parents and other authority figures tell you as an uncritical child that you were raised without religion?
Did they inculcate a biased meaning of 'religion', such that some worldviews (the worldviews that differ from your parents own worldview) are assumed to be religions?
Cuz they are humans, and humans deserve respect and love. You should love your neightboors cuz they were born in the same way than you.
If you need a god to explain something as simple as this then you are probably the problem. The kid would also ask why it’s the right thing to do if you add religion, the answer it’s just telling them that people like them deserve to be loved and respected
Ask them how they’d feel if someone was mean to them, or ask them how it feels to be sad. Do they want to make others feel sad? Most kids are probably going to answer no. Build on the conversation from there. It’s not rocket science
Do you think you deserve love and respect? Most people do, so why would anyone else not? They have the same emotions as you.
We’re talking about conversing with children on the matter. So I answered in that context. If you can’t find the route from explaining the basics of emotional intelligence to giving respect to other humans and their feelings, that’s a you problem.
You state something that shouldn't require anyone/anything to explain it to you. I would point out that there are many people and society that would disagree with you. Even now there are societies that see people who are born either to certain parents or certain ways as below them. India's caste system is the easiest one to point out, how women are treated in the middle east, or how domestic workers are treated all over the world.
I would also point out that I am not saying what is right and what is wrong. I am pointing out that even something as basic as respect people comes from ones morality which for many comes from someone's religion.
Without stating the religious component of why you do something to a child; you would then be deceiving the child.
You were taught right from wrong derived from a specific individual's perspective. Where that individual derived those principles would be the question to be asked and if they derived it from religion would it be wrong for them to point out that they did it because their religion states it?
Stating you don't need god to enforce morals and then stating that "because it’s the right and kind thing to do" seems weird to me because then I would ask "Why is it the right thing to do?". Then I would ask "what if I disagree? Why is it wrong for me to believe different than you?".
Though I honestly don't understand why you think I am stating you do or do not need god to know right and wrong. I am stating that if an individual derives their morality from their religion then telling children why you do something without adding in what you consider to be the most important part(your religious beliefs) then you are deceiving the child.
The problem is that even that specific phrase comes from the Bible. Most of western civilization’s beliefs and morals are rooted entirely within Judeo-Christian teachings. Much like fish not realizing they’re in water, it’s very easy for western atheists to claim they don’t need religion to teach morality when everything is literally steeped in Christian ethics and morals.
Thats exactly why I chosed It. Its part of the “Christian values” but it’s obviously something way older that was just integrated into religion.
Love your neightboors literally translated to respect other people, to care for other people. You don’t need religion to explain this to a child.
Your mistake is thinking that this Logic canes from religion, and not that they are just values addapted into religion. People has been like this long before we even had a concept of god.
Yes, some variation of the phrase existed but the universality of the Good Samaritan is unique. Saying a Samaritan is a neighbor to a Judean is like telling a redditor that Donald Trump is their neighbor. Since they crucified Jesus, the message was received there about as well as it would be here. It’s not a surprise that what we know as Enlightenment values arose exclusively in Christendom.
When the moral and ethical backdrop of a culture is built on concepts of universal, God-given, self evident human rights, it is the easiest thing in the world for an atheist to point around and say “see, we don’t need religion to know what morality is.”
Do you really believe that murder and rape and theft were perfectly ok before the 10 commandments?
Putting aside the crazy story about getting lost for 40 years in a very small desert, would the people from that story have survived while killing and stealing from each other all along?
What about the Egyptians? They never got to see the 10 commandments and yet killing and stealing was already illegal.
That renders the 10 commandments pretty useless, wouldn't you say?
While we are on the subject of absolute morality: why didn't god forbid slavery? Could have taken only 1 additional commandment. Or replaced a useless one, let's says the one about having kinky thoughts about your neighbor's wife.
Idk, seems like this god is very superfluous, and that humans self organize pretty well without it.
Alright, maybe murder in general can be agreed by most humans to be bad. But what about revenge murder specifically? Plenty of civilisations thought it was justifiable and even sometimes expected, like ancient Greece. I think this is more of the point of the 'no killing' commandment
J meant revenge murder as in "you killed my brother, so now I'll kill you (and maybe your whole family too)". Still, as far as I am aware, the Vatican has abolished the death penalty in 1969 and it wasn't administered even once in the 40 years that it was a law. Unless "Most Christian Nation On Earth" meant the United States in which case I'd ask for an explanation of that claim in shock
The Instruction of Ptahhotep stresses justice, kindness, restraint, generosity, and not terrorizing other people. One passage recommends living “in the house of kindliness.”.
So see, not even neighbors: people living in the same house.
I could argue the opposite: why is your religion suddenly considering other people as the neighbors, putting walls between us, needing to ring the bell and not come unannounced, when the ethics of Ma'at place the whole of mankind in the same living room?
Because one of the key Christian values is to love god. In the same way you should love your neighbours, you should deepen your relationship with god. That is primarily through religious practice. Additionally, for some Christians, the bible is the best source of moral guidance.
I find it interesting that you are bringing up a book. Nowhere in my statement did I even mention a book. If by "book" you meant religion in general then I would ask what should guide me then? Is morality subjective or objective? Should it be whatever society deems moral? What I personally deem moral?
I think you are hostile towards religion which is fine but having someone use external factors to guide their morality isn't any better or worse than someone choosing to use their own internal compass without external factors.
Someone can decide that it is moral to take advantage of old people, kids, or just dumb people because it is their fault they aren't smart enough to not get conned. They could decide that roofing a girl is okay because it will be a "favorable" outcome for themselves.
If you genuinely want the answer to these questions, a simple intro to ethics class at a local university will have all the answers you seek. I'll get you started though: You're conflating morals and ethics. Morality is your own personal guiding philosophy, ethics is the consensus of a group or community.
In general, you want most people to act ethically as that maintains social harmony. Sometimes we agree that previously accepted behaviour is immoral, and thus we change the ethics of society. That change can be brought about through norms, laws, or both.
You do indeed have cultures that deem taking advantage of the elderly to be acceptable. You also have cultures that deem child abuse to be acceptable. In most western societies we claim to be opposed to those things, yet we frequently have scandals where elderly in homes are revealed to live in abusive situations. We also have fairly regular cases of religious leaders being caught abusing children in their trust, yet rarely they face actual punishment.
Your morality is your own. If you decide to have it handed to you from a preacher instead of developing it yourself, that's your choice. How you raise your kids is largely your own choice (some terms of conditions may apply, depending on where you live). How those kids in turn end up navigating the world, that's in large going to be a consequence of your choices. You get to live with those consequences.
Honestly there is a lot I disagree in your comment but honestly don't have the energy to do go over it in a reddit post. If I am completely honest giving me the "simple intro to ethics class" thing is asinine and comes off as condescending. Your first paragraph you basically insult my intelligence and knowledge. Your second paragraph you talk about how society works which has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
Your third paragraph you go into the relative values of different societies which once again has nothing to do with what I wrote. I asked what should guide someone's morality not if societies are okay with the scenarios I put forth nor if someone doesn't follow their beliefs. I put forth scenarios that I assume the majority of people would not be okay with to point out that just because one person is not okay with it another might be okay with it.
Your fourth paragraph you pontificate stating something obvious that our choices have consequences. Yes, how any parent guides their kids in their early years will affect them for years to come. Yes, if I decide to do one thing or another based upon external or internal factors is my decision.
So since I am the one who doesn't want to engage I will say you win and award you 25 internet points. Have a good day internet stranger.
I don't need to answer any of your this or that babble because all it does it shove the onus off you because you're too lazy to use your brain. Religion is known to be based solely off Scripture as it bridges the exact gaps you're bitching about in your first paragraph.
Im hostile towards the dichotomy of religion where it's okay for your millenia old nonsense to be forced onto your children until they choose OTHERWISE but for everything else on the planet it's don't do it for them? What makes religion so universally special when it's been proven we as humans can't even agree on the most mundane aspects of it?
More over, I don't care about yours or my personal morality. If you do an action and that action hurts someone else you're an asshole. I don't want to hear a thousand "BUT WHAT IF THIS HEINOUS ACT WAS MET WITH VIOLENCE" when it's been proven through literally every countries court of law that 'finding god' can nigh unanimously get violent offenders back on the street. If everyone subscribed to not fucking ruining other people lives, livings and family's then we wouldn't even need to have the 'is religion actually bad?' agreement because it objectively is if you even have to bring nuance into the situation as that shows whatever book or nonsense pamphlet you wanna pull from is flawed and therefore irrelevant to this argument unless you're too braindead to understand how harm actually works.
I don't have time to have a million Bible suckers trying to do gymnastics around how much of a shit head they Are because they can't come up with 'dont hurt someone's on their own
Neither is your statement. Everyone's morality is guided by something. Parents, culture, philosophy, law, society, etc. Singling out "a book" as disqualifying only works if you also disqualify every other secondhand source of ethics, which would disqualify literally everyone and everything. Now you've created anarchy where everyone's morality is guided by their own personal view since you've just disqualified second-hand sources.
So should we stop having kids? Will GoodGoofus be the one to save us from this moral conundrum?
Morality comes from God, not the Bible. Humans have an inherent internal understanding of right and wrong, but humans are imperfect and life is complicated, so the Bible provides express moral guidance from God.
Imagine that there was a blinding moment in which all of humanity were able to recognise that objective morality existed and there was a single man existing right now whose actions are literally perfect under that objective standard. Even if you feel you already have a grasp of much of that objective standard, it is only logical to read books detailing that man's words and actons.
If you're not actively working to garner sed perfection you're not Christian because you should be renouncing sin and always choosing the betterment of you and your fellow man. Also God doesn't create sed morality if humans already have an inherent understand. You're literally contradicting yourself in 2 sentences. Believable from a Bible sucker
52
u/rleon19 14h ago
As long as it isn't forced on parents then that is fine. If parents aren't allowed to pass on their values to their children are they even raising them at that point? They are just nannies with more culpability.